Expecting a middle class tax break from the republicans? Don't hold your breath

[DougS]

So Trumps "Beautiful" tax reform will give the middle class a break? Double the standard deduction for married couples to roughly 25k. Then, take away personal exemptions. (Net effect is roughly 17k paired from your taxable income.

If you never itemize your deductions you may come out ahead, slightly. But what if you can only defer 2.4k into your 401k? What if your itemized deductions and personal exemptions exceeded 25k. When you add up state and local taxes, which you can't itemize in the beautiful plan, along with mortgage interest and charitable giving, exceeding 25k is not a long shot.

Don't just look at the new standard deduction. Look at what you have to give up to get there. Consider also that he wants to raise the lowest tax bracket.

One thing you can be sure of. The middle class will pay for that increased standard deduction.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/us/politics/republicans-tax-401-k.html

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

The middle class shouldn't get a tax break. Neither should the upper class.

We've voted, for decades, to have expensive government. We need to do a better job paying the bills we've opted to incur....or else (also?) be willing to have less government.

Obviously, I'd prefer the latter to the former. But, the reality is, we're probably going to have to accept some of both.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The middle class shouldn't get a tax break. Neither should the upper class.

We've voted, for decades, to have expensive government. We need to do a better job paying the bills we've opted to incur....or else (also?) be willing to have less government.

Obviously, I'd prefer the latter to the former. But, the reality is, we're probably going to have to accept some of both.

Instead, the GOP plan appears to be to increase spending, and only raise taxes on the one class of people that doesn't have enough income to make a difference.

 

[DougS]

The middle class shouldn't get a tax break. Neither should the upper class.

We've voted, for decades, to have expensive government. We need to do a better job paying the bills we've opted to incur....or else (also?) be willing to have less government.

Obviously, I'd prefer the latter to the former. But, the reality is, we're probably going to have to accept some of both.

Having fewer people in government is not the same as having less government. The Trump administration is attempting to intrude into every aspect of our lives. The part of government that he is eliminating is the part that protects us from it.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Having fewer people in government is not the same as having less government.

I agree with this. I would add spending less is not the same as less government either.

The Trump administration is attempting to intrude into every aspect of our lives. The part of government that he is eliminating is the part that protects us from it.

I have the opposite impression of some of Trump's proposals and actions. I am interested in your take about how the Trump administration attempts to intrude into eery aspect of our lives. What does he propose to eliminate that protects us from government?

 

[DougS]

I agree with this. I would add spending less is not the same as less government either.



I have the opposite impression of some of Trump's proposals and actions. I am interested in your take about how the Trump administration attempts to intrude into eery aspect of our lives. What does he propose to eliminate that protects us from government?

He has gutted the EPA, which protects us from ourselves. He has not replaced the Justice Department prosecutors that he sacked (last I heard). By refusing to staff the Executive Department he makes it's functions subject to his own whims.

To that, then add that he is interfering in private enterprise, seeking to force that which should be volunteered. And I haven't even started on what his idiot secretary of education is up to.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

He has gutted the EPA, which protects us from ourselves.

He hasn't gutted it. Three pillars of rural western life and livelihoods are timber, mining and livestock. The first two have been mostly gone for years. The EPA was working on the third with the non-navigable water quality rules. The courts thwarted that. Trump ended the fight. The Clean Power Plan was a feel good but meaningless order except for its negative impacts on local economies. Trump ended that too. Good for him.

He has not replaced the Justice Department prosecutors that he sacked (last I heard).

So? The real work is done by the career staff anyway. The appointed staff seldom prepares or tries cases--unless political points will be made. All the appointed staff does is prepare themselves for lucrative careers when they get fired after a new election.

By refusing to staff the Executive Department he makes it's functions subject to his own whims.

Government in general has been over-staffed. Just cuz some staff is good doesn't mean more staff is better.* I don't see the problem you see.

And I haven't even started on what his idiot secretary of education is up to.

The only thing she has done with effect was to repeal the Obama era orders about Title IX enforcement. That was good. She has restored a semblance of due process to the system. As for K-12, she has very little authority. Fortunately, K-12 education is firmly embedded in state and local government.

*Read the ARB report on Benghazi. Read the DOJ report on the IRS.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

He hasn't gutted it. Three pillars of rural western life and livelihoods are timber, mining and livestock. The first two have been mostly gone for years. The EPA was working on the third with the non-navigable water quality rules. The courts thwarted that. Trump ended the fight. The Clean Power Plan was a feel good but meaningless order except for its negative impacts on local economies. Trump ended that too. Good for him.



So? The real work is done by the career staff anyway. The appointed staff seldom prepares or tries cases--unless political points will be made. All the appointed staff does is prepare themselves for lucrative careers when they get fired after a new election.



Government in general has been over-staffed. Just cuz some staff is good doesn't mean more staff is better.* I don't see the problem you see.



The only thing she has done with effect was to repeal the Obama era orders about Title IX enforcement. That was good. She has restored a semblance of due process to the system. As for K-12, she has very little authority. Fortunately, K-12 education is firmly embedded in state and local government.

*Read the ARB report on Benghazi. Read the DOJ report on the IRS.

Allowing coal residue into the water supply was a horrible idea. Coal is a problem, Google cancer coal production and see how areas that produce coal have high cancer rates. So let's by all means put it into ground water which will certainly get into drinking water.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Allowing coal residue into the water supply was a horrible idea. Coal is a problem, Google cancer coal production and see how areas that produce coal have high cancer rates. So let's by all means put it into ground water which will certainly get into drinking water.

I won't dispute that areas which produce coal have high cancer rates. But I don't know about the causal relationship between the ground water quality issue you raise and cancer. I am also unaware of what Trump has done to allow groundwater to be unsafe. I'd like to consider this point if you can provide links.

FWIW, the notion that fracking causes ground water to catch fire has been shown to be a hoax. So there is that.

Edited and made better.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Having fewer people in government is not the same as having less government. The Trump administration is attempting to intrude into every aspect of our lives. The part of government that he is eliminating is the part that protects us from it.

Well, I didn't say anything about fewer people -- although one would think that a natural consequence of paring budgets.

I also wasn't simply talking about this president or this CongresS.

I'm talking more generally about the overall structural cost of government -- the lion's share of which is in so-called "non-discretionary" items. My point is that we've bought big government for the last century or so and when you buy expensive things you should expect expensive bills.

There's no good reason the middle class should be immune to that. They, after all, comprise the bulk of the electorate.

 

[UncleMark]

There's no good reason the middle class should be immune to that. They, after all, comprise the bulk of the electorate.

And receive the bulk of the benefits.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

And receive the bulk of the benefits.

But even that is only tangential to what I'm saying.

What I'm getting at is that they voted for this. Why should they expect to escape the bills for what they voted for?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

But even that is only tangential to what I'm saying.

What I'm getting at is that they voted for this. Why should they expect to escape the bills for what they voted for?

FTR, this is something for which Bernie Sanders deserves credit. In the 2016 primaries, he didn't just sell more government largess with the implication that somebody else would pay for it. He promised higher taxes for everybody to go along with it.

Now, I would argue -- and so would basic arithmetic -- that we're already at that stage. We just haven't formally recognized it yet. Even without Bernie's free college and Medicare for all, we already aren't paying the bills we've amassed.

But the point is: the piper must eventually be paid.

 

[Bill4411]

What kind of tax plan would you expect from a bunch of billionaires, tax cuts for the poor and middle class? Right...

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

And receive the bulk of the benefits.

Depending on how it's defined (isn't it typically the middle three quintiles or middle two quartile).

But shouldn't we be thinking about it more in net benefit terms?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

What kind of tax plan would you expect from a bunch of billionaires, tax cuts for the poor and middle class? Right...

Well, I'm not in favor of cutting taxes for anybody in our current predicament. But it stands to reason that, if you do cut taxes, the relief is going to be at least somewhat proportional to the burden.

If a state cuts sales taxes, wouldn't we expect that the degree to which one benefits will be inextricably linked to how much they spend on taxable goods?

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

So Trumps "Beautiful" tax reform will give the middle class a break? Double the standard deduction for married couples to roughly 25k. Then, take away personal exemptions. (Net effect is roughly 17k paired from your taxable income.

If you never itemize your deductions you may come out ahead, slightly. But what if you can only defer 2.4k into your 401k? What if your itemized deductions and personal exemptions exceeded 25k. When you add up state and local taxes, which you can't itemize in the beautiful plan, along with mortgage interest and charitable giving, exceeding 25k is not a long shot.

Don't just look at the new standard deduction. Look at what you have to give up to get there. Consider also that he wants to raise the lowest tax bracket.

One thing you can be sure of. The middle class will pay for that increased standard deduction.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/us/politics/republicans-tax-401-k.html

Nobody has less faith in Congress than I, including Republicans. But this seems like a shoddy article by a supposed esteemed journalistic institution.

"according to lobbyists, tax consultants and congressional Democrats."

 

[DougS]

For what it's worth, The only point I'm trying to make is that if middle class Americans thought Trump would lower their taxes, they thought wrong.

 

[twenty02]

Well, I didn't say anything about fewer people -- although one would think that a natural consequence of paring budgets.

I also wasn't simply talking about this president or this CongresS.

I'm talking more generally about the overall structural cost of government -- the lion's share of which is in so-called "non-discretionary" items. My point is that we've bought big government for the last century or so and when you buy expensive things you should expect expensive bills.

There's no good reason the middle class should be immune to that. They, after all, comprise the bulk of the electorate.

The issue, of course, is that something like 70% of GOP voters think their taxes are too high.....and a similar % fully expect another tax cut from Trump (this was after the 2001/03 tax cuts were made permanent for those earning under $400k/yr).

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

The issue, of course, is that something like 70% of GOP voters think their taxes are too high.....and a similar % fully expect another tax cut from Trump (this was after the 2001/03 tax cuts were made permanent for those earning under $400k/yr).

Yep. That's one of the issues -- there's no political points to be scored by raising taxes. The other side of the same coin is that there are no political points to be scored by cutting spending.

And that is why we're in the bind we're in.

Of course people want to pay less in taxes. And of course people want somebody else to pay for things they want/need. It's up to others to figure out how to make those incompatible desires coexist unimpeded.

And, to make matters worse, these desires are used as political footballs by our so-called leadership.

 

[TheVegasHoosier]

I agree with this. I would add spending less is not the same as less government either.



I have the opposite impression of some of Trump's proposals and actions. I am interested in your take about how the Trump administration attempts to intrude into eery aspect of our lives.

Sessions is ramping up going after pot smokers.

They've said businesses can now refuse to pay for birth control (letting religion get into business is scary)

Sessions has ramped up civil forfeiture.

 

[TheVegasHoosier]

The issue, of course, is that something like 70% of GOP voters think their taxes are too high.....and a similar % fully expect another tax cut from Trump (this was after the 2001/03 tax cuts were made permanent for those earning under $400k/yr).

No matter what, Righties whine their taxes are "too high."

Here in Nevada, there is no income tax and LOTS of the income for the state comes from taxing the tourists.....and the Righties STILL cry they are "taxed too much" even though our schools are the worst in the country.

Then, they turned around and gave $750 million for a football stadium and another 80 million for a baseball stadium.

 

[IUBBALLAWOL]

"President Donald Trump's tax reform framework could raise GDP by as much as 5 percent and wages by as much as 7 percent, according to a new study from Boston University economists.

"We find that, depending on the year considered, the new Republican tax plan raises GDP by between 3 and 5 percent and real wages by between 4 and 7 percent," the economists explain. "This translates into roughly $3,500 annually more annual real take-home pay for the average American household."

Economists believe this growth can happen due to the plan's aim to reduce the marginal effective corporate tax rate from 34.6 percent to 18.6 percent, which they believe will grow the capital stock by 12 to 20 percent.



While critics of the plan have said the tax cuts will add costs to the economy, the Boston University economists say the plan is essentially revenue neutral due to the economy's expected expansion. They point out that closing corporate tax loopholes helps keep the plan revenue neutral and increased revenues are a result of broadening the tax base."

This should make some heads explode here. I bet Boston University is a conservative Trump supporting bastion.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

"President Donald Trump's tax reform framework could raise GDP by as much as 5 percent and wages by as much as 7 percent, according to a new study from Boston University economists.

"We find that, depending on the year considered, the new Republican tax plan raises GDP by between 3 and 5 percent and real wages by between 4 and 7 percent," the economists explain. "This translates into roughly $3,500 annually more annual real take-home pay for the average American household."

Economists believe this growth can happen due to the plan's aim to reduce the marginal effective corporate tax rate from 34.6 percent to 18.6 percent, which they believe will grow the capital stock by 12 to 20 percent.



While critics of the plan have said the tax cuts will add costs to the economy, the Boston University economists say the plan is essentially revenue neutral due to the economy's expected expansion. They point out that closing corporate tax loopholes helps keep the plan revenue neutral and increased revenues are a result of broadening the tax base."

This should make some heads explode here. I bet Boston University is a conservative Trump supporting bastion.

You forgot the link.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

"President Donald Trump's tax reform framework could raise GDP by as much as 5 percent and wages by as much as 7 percent, according to a new study from Boston University economists.

"We find that, depending on the year considered, the new Republican tax plan raises GDP by between 3 and 5 percent and real wages by between 4 and 7 percent," the economists explain. "This translates into roughly $3,500 annually more annual real take-home pay for the average American household."

Economists believe this growth can happen due to the plan's aim to reduce the marginal effective corporate tax rate from 34.6 percent to 18.6 percent, which they believe will grow the capital stock by 12 to 20 percent.



While critics of the plan have said the tax cuts will add costs to the economy, the Boston University economists say the plan is essentially revenue neutral due to the economy's expected expansion. They point out that closing corporate tax loopholes helps keep the plan revenue neutral and increased revenues are a result of broadening the tax base."

This should make some heads explode here. I bet Boston University is a conservative Trump supporting bastion.

The Bloomberg story added this:

A paper published Monday by a trio of researchers at Boston University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology projected that the tax framework would boost real wages by roughly $3,500 annually. Still, the authors wrote, they were concerned that the plan “could disproportionately benefit the top 1 percent.”

 

[TheVegasHoosier]

While the uber rich might buy another BMW, my guess is most will blow their extra 20 million on another painting to hang in one of their mansions....which doesn't create any jobs at all.....to show off to their buddies.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

The Bloomberg story added this:

A paper published Monday by a trio of researchers at Boston University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology projected that the tax framework would boost real wages by roughly $3,500 annually. Still, the authors wrote, they were concerned that the plan “could disproportionately benefit the top 1 percent.”

But, again, doesn't it stand to reason that the relief from pretty much any tax cut is likely to bear some resemblance to the burden?

As I said above, if a sales tax is cut, then that's going to benefit those who buy taxable goods -- and the more one buys, the more of their dollars they can expect to keep.

There's an old saying that you can't squeeze blood from a stone. I'd say that maxim applies to tax relief, too.

 

[Circlejoe]

We're either going to have a really bad tax reform bill or congress won't be able to pass a thing. It's one or the other. The Republican leadership refuses to work across the aisle, so everything is being done behind closed doors. As information on the bill gets released, sh!t will hit the fan and we'll see parts of the proposed bill get dumped (i.e. Trump promises no change to current 401K limits). As various parts of the bill get cut, the math will get way too out of line for even the conservatives to get behind it. The only chance something passes is if the GOP believes they will all lose the next election unless they pass something, anything, no matter how bad the bill. It's so depressing.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

While the uber rich might buy another BMW, my guess is most will blow their extra 20 million on another painting to hang in one of their mansions....which doesn't create any jobs at all.....to show off to their buddies.

Some of us are good with one BMW. I'm not sure what I'll do with my tax break windfall.

 

[UncleMark]

Some of us are good with one BMW. I'm not sure what I'll do with my tax break windfall.

You'd better create some damn jobs, by Gawd.

 

[hootch1]

I don't know, CA tried to eliminate gerrymandering a decade ago with a referendum.

I think there can (and inevitably will) be changes to SS. But I don't think we will see it changed from a benefit formula that's tied to one's lifetime contributions. It becomes a true welfare system at that point.....and impacts people who are too vital a voting block (middle/upper-middle class, older age).

"President Donald Trump's tax reform framework could raise GDP by as much as 5 percent and wages by as much as 7 percent, according to a new study from Boston University economists.

"We find that, depending on the year considered, the new Republican tax plan raises GDP by between 3 and 5 percent and real wages by between 4 and 7 percent," the economists explain. "This translates into roughly $3,500 annually more annual real take-home pay for the average American household."

Economists believe this growth can happen due to the plan's aim to reduce the marginal effective corporate tax rate from 34.6 percent to 18.6 percent, which they believe will grow the capital stock by 12 to 20 percent.



While critics of the plan have said the tax cuts will add costs to the economy, the Boston University economists say the plan is essentially revenue neutral due to the economy's expected expansion. They point out that closing corporate tax loopholes helps keep the plan revenue neutral and increased revenues are a result of broadening the tax base."

This should make some heads explode here. I bet Boston University is a conservative Trump supporting bastion.

Did you read the "study"? It is a a twelve page PDF with annotations taking up most of the twelve pages.

It is written by a lawyer. That does not make it wrong, but it does make it not by "economists".

Essentially, he is taking the values placed by the Trump administration has placed on his plan.

Or maybe there is another analysis by Boston University "economists" that did not show up in my search.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

But, again, doesn't it stand to reason that the relief from pretty much any tax cut is likely to bear some resemblance to the burden?

As I said above, if a sales tax is cut, then that's going to benefit those who buy taxable goods -- and the more one buys, the more of their dollars they can expect to keep.

There's an old saying that you can't squeeze blood from a stone. I'd say that maxim applies to tax relief, too.

That is all correct. The point is, when one reads the average family will get $4000 They think that is what most families will get. This is like the "Bill Gates walks into a crowded bar, the average person in that bar is now a millionaire" problem. The truth is some families will make millions from the tax cuts, so a whole lot of families will make $0.

 

[RBB89]

The middle class shouldn't get a tax break. Neither should the upper class.

We've voted, for decades, to have expensive government. We need to do a better job paying the bills we've opted to incur....or else (also?) be willing to have less government.

Obviously, I'd prefer the latter to the former. But, the reality is, we're probably going to have to accept some of both.

Wasn’t your big reason for voting for Trump that he had great ideas about healthcare and tax reform? How’s that working out for you?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Wasn’t your big reason for voting for Trump that he had great ideas about healthcare and tax reform? How’s that working out for you?

No.

I voted for Trump because I was reasonably sure that, with a Trump presidency, I was likely to see (1) more of the kinds of laws and policies I support, and/or (2) less of the kinds of policies I oppose than what I was likely to see with a Clinton presidency.

I've long loathed him as a person -- which, I have to say, sets me apart from at least some of his most vociferous (or, at least, visible) contemporary detractors. But I set that animus aside for pragmatic reasons.

Even Rich Lowry, who was one of the leaders of the "Never Trump" contingent, has started to recognize why so many of us held our noses and voted for the man:

I give W. lot of points for sincerity for his attack on Trump and Trumpism. Where I think he was on strongest ground is his critique of how President Trump conducts himself and how it contributes to the degrading of our political culture. This, so far, is the worst aspect of Trump’s presidency. There has been no budding authoritarianism and — although one may be emerging on trade — no meaningful ideological challenge to traditional conservatism. In fact, Trump has put points on the board on deregulation, religious liberty, immigration enforcement, and judges. But he has acted like Donald Trump, even though he’s occupying the highest office in the land.​

In other words, I can live with him acting like Donald Trump....so long as we get some positive things out of him. Ultimately, it's those things which matter most.

 

[Rockfish1]

"President Donald Trump's tax reform framework could raise GDP by as much as 5 percent and wages by as much as 7 percent, according to a new study from Boston University economists.

"We find that, depending on the year considered, the new Republican tax plan raises GDP by between 3 and 5 percent and real wages by between 4 and 7 percent," the economists explain. "This translates into roughly $3,500 annually more annual real take-home pay for the average American household."

Economists believe this growth can happen due to the plan's aim to reduce the marginal effective corporate tax rate from 34.6 percent to 18.6 percent, which they believe will grow the capital stock by 12 to 20 percent.



While critics of the plan have said the tax cuts will add costs to the economy, the Boston University economists say the plan is essentially revenue neutral due to the economy's expected expansion. They point out that closing corporate tax loopholes helps keep the plan revenue neutral and increased revenues are a result of broadening the tax base."

This should make some heads explode here. I bet Boston University is a conservative Trump supporting bastion.

It doesn't make my head explode, but it does make me wonder when you guys will quit buying the Brooklyn Bridge on voodoo economics. Also, Laurence Kotlikoff is a well known supply sider. These are exactly the sort of claims he'd make.

Conservative economist Greg Mankiw has said that only "charlatans and cranks" make claims of such huge supply side effects from tax cuts. So predictably this is getting play in right wing media, where charlatans and cranks have a wide audience.

 

[TheVegasHoosier]

In other words, I can live with him acting like Donald Trump....so long as we get some positive things out of him. Ultimately, it's those things which matter most.

It's really odd how the apologists say they have no problem with Trump acting like a complete a-hole and then turn around and whine about my posting style.

So, the Leader of the Free World can be the biggest jerk in the world and that is perfectly ok because "he gets some positive things done" (like gutting the EPA to let companies pollute as much as they want) yet it's the END OF HUMANITY if I call his supporters names.

Makes sense to me. LOL!!

Speaking of which, I almost vomited last night watching a Trump-apologist actually praise Trump for ripping that widow. He had a huge grin on his face and bragged, "We love Trump because we finally have someone who fights back against PC nonsense."

Well, at least Trump "gets some things done" while he's making it perfectly fine to rip Gold Star families now.

Barf.

 

[twenty02]

No.

I voted for Trump because I was reasonably sure that, with a Trump presidency, I was likely to see (1) more of the kinds of laws and policies I support, and/or (2) less of the kinds of policies I oppose than what I was likely to see with a Clinton presidency.

I've long loathed him as a person -- which, I have to say, sets me apart from at least some of his most vociferous (or, at least, visible) contemporary detractors. But I set that animus aside for pragmatic reasons.

Even Rich Lowry, who was one of the leaders of the "Never Trump" contingent, has started to recognize why so many of us held our noses and voted for the man:

I give W. lot of points for sincerity for his attack on Trump and Trumpism. Where I think he was on strongest ground is his critique of how President Trump conducts himself and how it contributes to the degrading of our political culture. This, so far, is the worst aspect of Trump’s presidency. There has been no budding authoritarianism and — although one may be emerging on trade — no meaningful ideological challenge to traditional conservatism. In fact, Trump has put points on the board on deregulation, religious liberty, immigration enforcement, and judges. But he has acted like Donald Trump, even though he’s occupying the highest office in the land.​

In other words, I can live with him acting like Donald Trump....so long as we get some positive things out of him. Ultimately, it's those things which matter most.

You clearly have more patience than Bob Corker. At what point would you regret? Nuclear war?

In an interview with CNN in a Senate hallway shortly after the tweets, Corker escalated his criticism, calling Trump a serial liar, saying he regretted supporting him for president, accusing him of debasing the country and refusing to say whether he trusted Trump with the U.S. nuclear codes.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/356841-trump-corker-feud-reignites-hours-before-critical-meeting​

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It's really odd how the apologists say they have no problem with Trump acting like a complete a-hole and then turn around and whine about my posting style.

So, the Leader of the Free World can be the biggest jerk in the world and that is perfectly ok because "he gets some positive things done" (like gutting the EPA to let companies pollute as much as they want) yet it's the END OF HUMANITY if I call his supporters names.

Makes sense to me. LOL!!

Speaking of which, I almost vomited last night watching a Trump-apologist actually praise Trump for ripping that widow. He had a huge grin on his face and bragged, "We love Trump because we finally have someone who fights back against PC nonsense."

Well, at least Trump "gets some things done" while he's making it perfectly fine to rip Gold Star families now.

Barf.

I haven't really said much about the Gold Star thing. But I would say that I seriously doubt that, whatever he said, he meant it the way she apparently received it.

Not that I'm bent towards giving Trump the benefit of the doubt on what comes out of his mouth. There's a lot that comes out of his mouth where he richly deserves all the flak that comes back his way.

But, after hearing the recording of the call that he placed to the other widow, I got the impression that him saying "he knew what he was getting into" wasn't at all intended to be coarse...but, rather, complimentary.

Of course, some people are always going to be predisposed to believe the worst about him. Others, the opposite. C'est la vie.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You clearly have more patience than Bob Corker. At what point would you regret? Nuclear war?

In an interview with CNN in a Senate hallway shortly after the tweets, Corker escalated his criticism, calling Trump a serial liar, saying he regretted supporting him for president, accusing him of debasing the country and refusing to say whether he trusted Trump with the U.S. nuclear codes.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/356841-trump-corker-feud-reignites-hours-before-critical-meeting​

Well, I don't know. But whatever point that is, we're not at it. It's always something that needs to be contrasted with the only true alternative. At what point would I consider Trump to be worse for the country than Hillary would've been? No point we've gotten to 9 months into it, that's for sure.

His bluster will come and go without much in the way of meaningful impact. The policies we're left with (or would've been left with, had the election gone the other way) will endure with profound impact.

And Lowry's right -- if you look past the sideshow stuff and just focus on the meaningful output, there are a number of things that anybody of a conservative persuasion should be pleased with. What's more, most of the places where the ball hasn't moved can actually be laid at the feet of Congress (and, specifically, the Senate), not at the feet of POTUS.

Perhaps Bob Corker needs to redirect his ire. Even Sen. Graham seems to have figured this out. Where the ball has been dropped thus far, it's been dropped in their court.

 

[hoosboot]

I haven't really said much about the Gold Star thing. But I would say that I seriously doubt that, whatever he said, he meant it the way she apparently received it.

Not that I'm bent towards giving Trump the benefit of the doubt on what comes out of his mouth. There's a lot that comes out of his mouth where he richly deserves all the flak that comes back his way.

But, after hearing the recording of the call that he placed to the other widow, I got the impression that him saying "he knew what he was getting into" wasn't at all intended to be coarse...but, rather, complimentary.

Of course, some people are always going to be predisposed to believe the worst about him. Others, the opposite. C'est la vie.

Ah...the "he didn't mean to be a dick" defense. Très persuasive.